COMPARING QCD VS. IPP, POINT-BY-POINT

1) About Quarks, QCD's Building-Blocks for Hadrons

In QCD, hadrons are postulated to be combinations of either two quarks
(a matter/antimatter pair, termed a meson), or a combination of three
quarks, termed a baryon (all three quarks being either of matter, or of
antimatter flavor). Quarks are defined as fundamental sub-particles comprising a
family of 36 members, which differ in flavor, charge, color, mass, and
matter/antimatter valences. Let us explore what is meant by each of these quark
properties:

Flavor is the most fundamental way that quarks are classified. There
are six flavors of quarks: down, up, strange, charm, bottom & top;
and six flavors of anti-quarks: the same six, but with an "anti-" prefix. These
flavors are normally abbreviated as follows:

_

_

_

_

_

_

d,

u,

s,

c,

b,

t,

d,

u,

s,

c,

b,

t

Further references in the website or book to these antimatter quarks, and
other antimatter particles, will be prefaced by "@"; hence, @d, @u, @s, @c, @b,
@t.

The first two flavors, d & u, are the only ones needed to describe
ordinary hadron matter, i.e. protons (uud) & neutrons (udd). The other three
flavors of quarks & antiquarks were gradually added over the years as new
classes of particles were discovered. (None of these new particles required the
t-quark; it was added to the list simply because the b-quark looked lonely
without a partner analogous to u & c). Hundreds of kinds of these transient
hadron resonances are now known, and their numbers continue to grow.

These resonances vary in mass from pions (»137 MeV)
& nucleons (»939 MeV) to upsilon mesons (9640 to
11020 MeV). The search for analogous top quark combinations has been under way
for over a decade in increasing mass regions, with no success until recently,
when Fermilab announced finding a structure at 160 - 170 GeV that was assumed to
be a t@t meson. This mass for the t-quark is so much higher than anyone
expected, that, in my appraisal, it should be considered to be a new phenomenon,
perhaps a second generation of W & Z particles (these are considered
micro-black-holes in infinite particle physics).

An obvious difficulty for the student of QCD is that all quarks, regardless
of flavor, or color, are assumed to be infinitesimal points. He must try to
understand how 36 varieties of structureless points can differ in flavor, color,
mass, charge, bonding propensities, and decay modes, and yet all possess the
same spin. He obviously can't!

2) Defect-Pairs, IPP's Building-Blocks for Hadrons

IPP's defect-pairs, like QCD's quarks, can exist in a large number of
"flavors". However, unlike quarks, which all have the same structure (a point)
and indefinite mass, each of IPP's defect-pair "flavors" has a specific
defect-spacing, which can be drawn to scale, and a specific mass, which can be
calculated by a simple formula. These defect spacings will always be
integers of the space-lattice constant, and will always be an
odd number of lattice units for paired like-charge
c-voids, and an even number, for paired
opposite-charge c-voids.

When we view particles, resonances, and nuclei, as clusters of defect-pairs,
we find that we can understand their qualitative and quantitative aspects by
classifying the various defect-pair configurations into the following four
variable parameters:

Eleven inter-defect spacings: These spacings can vary from 5 ® 15 lattice units, with corresponding mass-energy values
ranging from 92.50 MeV to 868.54 MeV. Inter-defect spacings of defect-pairs
tend to increase with the number of defect-pairs in a cluster, while their
mass-energy increases proportional to the square of their inter-defect
spacings.

Three directions of pairing: Since the simple cubic lattice of
space has three mutually-orthogonal cardinal axes, the pairing
axis of a defect-pair has a possibility of taking (i.e., of forming in)
any of three cardinal orientations. These cardinal options permit clusters of
mutually-orthogonal defect-pairs.

Two directions of "slant": ("Slant" is IPP's term for the
face-diagonal direction of a c-void's expansion zone). Since bonding of
two c-voids requires that they have opposite orientation of expansion and
contraction, it becomes obvious that defect-pairs have two structural
possibilities (i.e., two "slant" forms) in each cardinal orientation.

Four charge arrangements: As I have explained, voids create a local
charge imbalance of ± 1/2e. Obviously, when the ECEs surrounding a void
collapse to form a c-void, the local imbalance of charge will not be affected;
hence, c-voids also possess a charge of ± 1/2e. Thus, two paired c-voids can
have four arrangements of their ± 1/2e charges:

+ ···· +
– ···· –
+ ···· –
– ···· +

The
charges of these four forms are, self-evidently, +e, –e, 0, & 0.

Charge-exchanges between face-diagonally adjacent c-voids: We shall
find compelling arguments which persuade us that, in many defect-pair clusters,
charges of opposite polarity often exchange places between adjacent orthogonal
defect-pairs. For example, the four +1/2e c-voids and the two –1/2e c-voids
comprising the three mutually orthogonal defect-pairs of the proton undergo a
repetitive cycle of six charge-exchanges, which causes each c-void site to
change charges in the following sequence: +, +, +, +, –, –. Each site, of
course, begins this endlessly-repeated sequence at a different point in the
charge-exchange cycle. Charge-exchanges greatly prolong the lifetime of
defect-pair clusters, compared to those lacking charge-exchange opportunities,
by muting the disrupting influence of passing charged voids, and other charged
destabilizing agents.

Inter-defect-pair bonds: One of the most persuasive aspects of the
defect-pair concept for hadron particles is its ability to explain strong-force
bonds, without the need for any auxiliary agents, such as QCD's gluons. The
bonding between defect-pairs is merely a lesser manifestation of the same
process which binds paired c-voids together, namely, suitable alignments of
adjacent defect-pairs that permit further cancellations of expansion/contraction
distortion. This is possible, because every paired c-void is surrounded by
uncanceled residues of expansion/contraction distortion, simply because, being
spaced apart, each c-void sees the inverse-square attenuated distortion
pattern of its mate. It should be evident that these inter-defect-pair
cancellations require opposite "slants", and precise lattice orientations, if
bonds are to develop between adjacent c-voids of the two defect-pairs. These
geometrical constraints account for the short range of "strong-force" bonds.
They also allow one to infer the most plausible structures for defect-pair
clusters and nuclei.

Some general conclusions: IPP shows that all hadron resonances,
regardless of mass-energy, can be described as clusters of one, or more,
defect-pairs. Clusters can form in one, two, or three-axis arrangements, which
can assume a great variety of geometrical configurations. These clusters are
bound together either by inter-defect-pair charge-exchanges, or by
inter-defect-pair strong-force bonds, or by both. What permits this one
building-block, defect-pairs, to produce structures whose mass-energies range
from pions (136, 139 MeV) to upsilons (9460 ® 11020 MeV),
is that both the defect-spacings and defect-pair mass-energies tend to increase
with cluster complexity. Under VISUAL IMAGES, I provide many examples of
explicit meson and baryon structures. We shall find that these structures
correlate nicely with the charge-forms, parities, symmetries, and experimental
mass-energy values of numerous resonances inferred from the analysis of
high-energy particle experiments.

3) Charge Concepts Of QCD

Charge is an ad hoc concept in QCD. Charges are assigned to the
sixty-two "fundamental" particles without reference to an underlying source, or
concept, of charge. Obviously, the fact that charge is conserved in all observed
particle creations and decays guides these charge assignments, but QCD theory
makes no attempt to correlate charge differences with differences in lepton, or
quark, structures. QCD assigns ± e charges to its three classes of
leptons (± electrons, ± muons, & ± taus), but its three classes of neutrinos
are presumed to have neutral charges (whatever that is!). Its quark charges, on
the other hand, are presumed to be fractional, as outlined below.

Fractional quark charges of ± 1/3e & ± 2/3e were conceived
initially as simply a clever mathematical scheme to make two-quark &
three-quark particles sum to the observed particle charges of - 2e, - e, 0, + e,
+ 2e. The ± 2e charges, of course, are possible only to three-quark particles.
This scheme was perhaps put on a firm experimental basis, when high-energy
electron scattering experiments on protons were interpreted as showing a + 1/3e
charge in this + e charge particle, in which the electron presumably grazes two
quarks, d & u, whose charges sum to + 1/3e (see below). I give IPP's
interpretation of this experiment later in the book. Now let us look at the
charges that QCD assigns to its flavors of quarks:

The anti-quarks have the same values, but with opposite signs. One should
note that QCD makes no effort to explain what charge is, nor why quark charges
are different from lepton charges, ± e & 0.

4) Charge Concepts Of IPP

IPP requires only two fundamental charge forms: These are the
postulated ± 1/2e "charges" of the elemental charge entities (ECEs)
comprising the polycrystalline lattice of space. No other charges need be
assigned, because the charges of all the various leptons and hadrons are
implicit in their associated defect structures. Every specific particle type has
a unique defect structure at its center, and each defect, or combination
of defects, results in a calculable imbalance in the local numbers of + ECEs vs.
- ECEs. Hence, one obtains the charge of a particular particle simply by summing
the charges of the number of excess ECEs present (zero charge is obviously
possible, if the mix of defects creates zero imbalance).

Like QCD, IPP can offer no explanation for the "charges" of its fundamental
particles, ECEs, but it does provide geometric explanations for the charges of
all observed particles, including neutral "charges", without the need to
postulate any other charge forms.

5) QCD's vs. IPP's Concept Of Antimatter

Rather than QCD's way of thinking of antimatter as some strange beast, happy
only in an antimatter universe, IPP views antimatter as simply a clustering of
defects whose charges are opposite to those of ordinary matter. Defects, and
charged defect-clusters, of the same defect composition can have two
charge forms, either plus, or minus. The infinitely-extending lattice-distortion
patterns of these opposite charge forms will resemble each other in all
particulars, except for one thing: every corresponding ECE in their infinite
patterns will be of opposite polarity! This is how IPP differentiates matter
from antimatter.

6) QCD's Concepts Of Quark Spins ("Color Charge")

Color is a bookkeeping term that is used to make QCD conform to the
Pauli Exclusion Principle. Its necessity is inferred from a chain of reasoning
beginning with assigning quarks a spin of 1/2, so that a proton's three quarks
(uud) can sum to its known spin of 1/2 (by assigning opposite spins to the two
u-quarks). The next step in the chain resulted from finding several resonances
whose measured spins were 3/2, and whose quark components were required to be
all of the same flavor, like omega– (ccc), delta– (ddd),
& delta++ (uuu).

Because physicists currently believe that all odd-spin particles are expected
to obey Pauli's Exclusion Principle, the only way that a cluster of three
like-flavor quarks of 1/2 spin can sum to a spin of 3/2 is for all of them to be
different in some unspecified characteristic; hence, each quark must come in
three "colors", and each anti-quark must come in three "anti-colors"! Then to
justify this deduction, QCD asserts that all other combinations of three quarks
need to have one member from each of the three quark color values, and, hence,
be "color neutral". Likewise, each two-quark particle must also be "color
neutral", which requires that its anti-quark be the anti-color of its quark
mate.

7) IPP's Concept Of Spin

IPP, on the other hand, perceives the spin of particles as resulting
from three effects: hovering, charge-exchanges and orientation
isomers. Hovering and charge-exchanges introduce detectable wobble in the
center locations of a particle's distortion pattern, while orientation isomers
are detectable as spin, only through their differential deflections in particle
detectors, or in Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Orientation isomers may be defined as
asymmetrical clusters of identical defect-pair composition, which have
formed in a variety of spatial orientations. It is evident that a cluster's
asymmetry can assume at least three orientations in space (and often more),
because any particular defect-pair in a cluster can orient in any of the three
cardinal directions of the space lattice.

Thus, in contrast to QCD, IPP has no need for Pauli's Exclusion Principle in
its study of particle structures, because IPP interprets particle spins as a
structural feature, not a component feature.

8) Calculating The Mass-Energy Of QCD's Quarks

Mass is QCD's Achilles heel. There is no direct way to weigh a quark,
because quarks are assumed never to be found in isolation. Rather, quarks are
presumed to exist only as sub-components of larger hadron entities classified
into two varieties, mesons and baryons. Since the quark components and accurate
masses of dozens of particles and resonances are known (i.e. have been
assigned), it would seem to be an easy problem to extract the quark masses from
this data, but, alas, there are complications! I give a few examples below, to
illustrate the problem:

Here are some things the this chart reveals:

In QCD, the mass of a particle is not the simple sum of the masses of
its component quarks. For example, in the baryons, uud & udd, the u
& d quarks appear to weigh about 313 MeV each, while in the mesons, u@d
& d@u, they appear to weigh about 68.8 MeV. We might infer from this mass
difference that paired antiparticles annihilate much of each other's mass,
except that, if we look further down the table, we find an opposite
conclusion: baryon ccc has 930 MeV components, while meson c@c has 1548 MeV
components.

Excited states of quark combinations do not have simple mass
relationships to their ground states. For example, examine the last four
entries in the right column: You will see that the fifth excited state of the
c@c meson is 4.415/3.0969 = 1.43 times heavier than its ground state, whereas
the same excited state of b@b is only 11.019/9.4604 = 1.16 times heavier than
its ground state.

QCD's solution to these obvious inconsistencies is to postulate that
an uncombined quark (a "naked" quark) has a small mass, but this mass is greatly
augmented when the quarks are in a combined state with other quarks. Thus, one
must extrapolate backwards from various spectrums of excited particle states to
find a value for a "naked" quark. These extrapolations are esoteric and do not
fit all excited particle spectrums equally well, so many have been
proposed. Thus, these "naked" quark masses for the various flavors of quarks can
be given only as a range of values. Here are the values given in LBL 2000
Review of Particle Properties, page 26:

9) How IPP Calculates Hadron Masses

In IPP, mass-calculations are straightforward:

IPP's c-voids, like QCD's quarks, can form stable structures only
when paired with another c-void. However, unlike QCD's notion of very low mass
energy for "naked" quarks, IPP infers that a fully-formed "naked" cvoid would
have infinite mass energy.

Defect-pairs, IPP's fundamental building blocks, in contrast to
quarks, have precise mass values that depend solely upon the quantized
spacings between their component c-voids. These mass values are consistently
maintained throughout the whole spectrum of particles and resonances. The mass
of a defect-pair vs. inter-defect spacing can be found from these two
equations, where d = the inter-defect spacing (See Chapter 2 of included book
for their derivation):

For even d, mass (in MeV)
= 3.8692712d2 - 70.010 / d1.55316
For odd d,
mass (in MeV) = 3.8692712d2 - 19.455 / d0.957023

Finding the mass of a hadron particle with no inter-pair bonds
(e.g. pions, kaons, nucleons & D's), involves summing the calculated
masses of the component defect-pairs for each charge-exchange state, and then
finding the simple average of the masses of all the charge-exchange states,
giving equal weight to each state.

More complex hadrons usually will have some strong-force bonds
among their constituent defect-pairs, but the mass-deficits of these bonds are
easily calculated (see the Hadron Tutorial or Chapter 2), since they depend
only on defect-spacings of the bonded defect-pairs and the spacing of between
them. The mass-deficits of these inter-pair bonds are then subtracted from the
sum of the constituent defect-pair masses to find the particle mass.

IPP views QCD's excited particle states as structures of similar
geometry to the ground state, but with either different defect-pair spacings, or
with different strong-force bond spacings, or with both. IPP's concept of an
excited state is simply one in which analogous defect-pair spacings are larger
than those of the ground state, or analogous bonds spacings are smaller (or
both).

There is nothing equivocal about IPP's hadron structures, since both
the inferred defect-pair spacings and bond spacings are quantized phenomena.
Hence, IPP's mass calculations, when compared against experimental values, are a
valid test of the Theory.

10) How QCD Describes Particle Structures

QCD tantalizes us by assigning quantum numbers to each well-validated
resonance. These quantum numbers are an abstract specification of the
symmetry, spin, parity, strangeness, etc., of a resonance, as determined from
its observed decay modes, e.g., whether it decays symmetrically, or
asymmetrically, what charge imbalance exists in decay products, etc. We get only
a fuzzy picture of its structure, something the mind cannot grasp as a clear
image. Furthermore, we may get a false impression, because symmetrical
resonances may manifest asymmetrical decays, as IPP is able to demonstrate!

11) How IPP Describes Particle Structures

IPP provides accurately scaled, three dimensional diagrams of mesons and
baryons, which show the number of defect-pairs, their internal defect spacings,
and their geometric relationships and bond spacings. These diagrams usually show
all the charge-exchange states of the particle's complete charge-exchange cycle.
Since all the inter-defect spacings are integer numbers of lattice units (ü),
precise mass calculations can be made. These frequently correlate within ±0.01%
for resonances whose mass values are accurately known.

12) The Fundamental Distinction Between QCD And IPP

The greatest contrast between QCD and IPP is not between quarks
and defect-pairs. It is, rather, in the basic concepts of particles,
themselves.

QCD theorists consider hadron particles to be composed of either two
infinitesimal quarks (mesons), or three infinitesimal quarks (baryons). They
believe that the quarks comprising these hadron particles can assume different
identities, such as different flavors, colors, charges, masses, and degrees of
excitement, and that a limited number of these different identities are
sufficient to explain all the well-validated mesons & baryon resonances
inferred from accelerator experiments. Their proof for this belief is expressed
in various classification schemes. To see the details of these Quark
classification schemes, please click here.

IPP theorists, on the other hand, view hadron particles as dynamic
point-centered infinitely extending lattice distortion patterns centered upon
clusters of defect pairs. They believe that defect-pairs can form at various
inter-defect spacings, in various cardinal directions, slants, geometric
arrangements, and in numbers up to sixteen per cluster, and this variety is
sufficient to explain all known resonances and even those yet to be discovered.
Their goal is to find a unique geometrical arrangement of clustered defects for
each distinguishable particle or resonance, and prove that it matches its
experimental mass-energy and charge values. These correlations in IPP are shown
as an animated sequence of accurately-scaled 3-D drawings of all the particle's
charge-exchange states, along with an animated sequence of individual
mass-energy calculations for each state, their simple average, and the
experimental mass-energy value. The cluster's charge is easily perceived, as the
summation charge of all the color-coded ± 1/2e charges of the component c-void
defects.

The differences between these two approaches can also be explored,
philosophically, to rather interesting conclusions. I do this in the next
section.

INFINITESIMAL VS. INFINITE APPROACHES

Let's begin by imagining that we haven't yet made up our minds about these
two alternatives. What do we already know that could be used as evidence for
attesting to the validity (or usefulness) of either viewpoint? Let's lay out
this evidence:

13) Evidence that Particles Are Infinitesimal Points

All the objects in our environment appear to have discrete boundaries,
which argues that the atoms comprising them do not extend beyond their
surfaces.

When we accelerate particles toward foil targets, we find that collisions
are very improbable; hence, the particles comprising both the beam, and the
targets, appear to be exceedingly small!

All of our current equations for calculating the interactions between
particles assume that all the particle's properties are concentrated in an
infinitesimal point, and the predictions of these equations are, without
exception, quite accurate!

When an atom is excited by absorption of a photon, the photon seems to
vanish instantly; there is no evidence of a prolonged collapse of a diffuse
phenomenon!

14) Evidence That Particles Are Very, Very Large

Every particle in the universe seems to attract every other particle with
a force that is directly proportional to the product of their individual
masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating
them. Doesn't this suggest that all particles interpenetrate each other, and
hence have infinite sizes?

Charged particles respond to a matrix of surrounding charged particles by
moving toward opposite-charge particles, and away from like-charge particles.
Surely this suggests that charged particles have diffuse boundaries!

Electrons moving in the core of the earth generate a magnetic field that
extends thousands of miles into the space surrounding the earth. Doesn't this,
too, suggest that electrons are diffuse enough to extend for thousands
of miles, if not to infinity?

When we direct photons, or electrons, toward two closely spaced holes in a
metal plate, we observe interference effects that can only be explained by
assuming that these particles actually go through both holes simultaneously!
Here, again, is evidence that both of these particle types are
spatially diffuse.

Certain experiments generate pairs of oppositely-directed photons,
or particles. Other experiments have proved that these oppositely-moving
particles have correlated polarizations, or correlated spins, such that the
two particles appear to "communicate" their states to each other continuously.
Surely this suggests that these particles have diffuse, and continuously
expanding, boundaries.

Diffuse photons are even required to explain mirror
reflections, as Richard Feynman points out in his book, QED (Princeton
University Press, 1985) pages. 39-47. It is only when one assumes that
each photon creating the image reflects from every point on the
mirror surface that a rational explanation can be given!

15) Theoretical Disadvantages of Current Approach

If particles are assumed to be infinitesimal points:

Differences between types of particles can't be described
structurally, since each can be described only as an infinitesimal
point. Thus, point-particle theorists, lacking a structural means of
differentiating particles, have had to classify their various point-particles
by their differing experimental properties. Those familiar with QCD know that
this method of classification requires at least sixty-two fundamental
particles to describe all the bosons, leptons, and hadrons that have been
inferred from high-energy experiments!

Point-particles bring the burden of cosmic emptiness! This follows,
because, if all point-particles have the same radius that recent experiments
ascribed to an electron (<10-18 m.)*,
then all the estimated 1080 of them in the universe could be
contained in a cube whose sides are two orders of magnitude less than the
earth-sun distance.

(1080 x (2 x
10-18)3)1/3 = 9.3 x 108 m. vs. 1.5
x 1011 m.

* This value obtained from Institute of
Physics website, Science Museum (1997).
This extreme cosmic
emptiness raises four serious theoretical difficulties:

If emptiness is the absence of anything material, how can it act to
space apart tiny point-bits of matter?

Emptiness, being nothingness, is indescribable. How, then, can theorists
offer plausible explanations for point-particle motion through it?

All photons & particles generate detectable waves (electromagnetic
& matter-waves). How do these waves propagate through emptiness?

If point-particles do not "touch" each other, being separated by
emptiness, how do forces arise? Point-particle theorists have proposed this:
Each kind of force (gravity, electromagnetism, strong, weak) is assigned a
specific type of force particle (graviton, virtual photon, gluon, weakon)
and each infinitesimal point-particle is presumed to be capable of emitting
and absorbing whatever force particles are appropriate to its inherent
nature. One must imagine that these emitting and absorbing processes
function simultaneously and omnidirectionally, and in sufficient numbers to
convey, and receive, mass, charge, force, and movement information to, and
from, every other particle in the universe. Surely, no one believes this!

Finally, many of the experimental properties of particles are
inconsistent with the notion, "point"! How can a "point" have spin? Or mass?
How can it generate matter-waves? How does a relativistic "point" differ from
a slow-moving "point" to account for its orders-of-magnitude more momentum?
Where does "momentum" reside in a "point"? Where does "mass" reside? Where
does "charge" reside? What is different about various "points", when their
masses or charges are different? All these questions remain unanswered by
point-particle theorists.

16) Theoretical Advantages of the Infinite Particle Approach

If particles are assumed to be infinitely large, current theoretical
difficulties largely disappear:

Differences between types of particles can be described
structurally, because an infinite-particle in a solid space is plausible only
as an incessantly-expanding lattice-distortion pattern, centered around a
lattice defect, or defect-cluster, and it is obvious that the shape of the
distortion pattern will be determined by the type of defect(s) creating it.
(See Lattice Defects, below.)

Space will obviously not possess emptiness, so none of the difficulties
that emptiness creates will entail to an infinite particle theory. IPP defines
"empty" space as a region of the universal space lattice minimally affected by
the distortion patterns of remote matter and energy.

Wave propagation is inherent in a bipolar lattice of mutually interacting
oppositely-charged ionic ether particles. The various waves of physics can be
explained simply as various attributes of the ellipsoidal lattice-density
waves associated with drifting, hovering defects, or with photons.

Forces are easily explained as the alteration of the ellipticity of a
particle's hovering lattice-density oscillation, when its in-and-out waveforms
suffer differential reflections as a result of radial lattice asymmetries
(fields). Radial lattice asymmetries result from the local vector summation of
the inverse-square diminished lattice distortion patterns emanating from all
the particles in the universe, including the particle's own distortion
patterns. Changes in the ellipticity of a particle's hovering oscillation
results in changes in a particle's rate of drift through the lattice.

Particle charge is easily explained as simply the summation charge of all
the ±1/2e charge defects clustered at a particle's center.

I hope that you have found these comparisons between QCD and IPP useful to
your study of Infinite Particle Physics. To continue, please choose any item
from the Navigation Bar to your left.

End Of Article